Obama '08?

The next presidential election is now only 16 months away. I have until recently believed that President Obama would almost certainly win reelection for a second term - as do most of out recent presidents. However, of late I have come to the conclusion that he very likely will not do so, and will, instead be a one term President.

Certainly there are a lot of contradictory indicators out there, as well as a great deal of uncertainty of near term trends in things thar could affect the result in the time remaining - so I could end up wrong on this. My reason for the changed assessment has to do with the increasingly clear pattern of Presidential inaction on criticl issues before us, and on an equally clear pattern of political gamesmenship trumping even objective issues on which he has stated clear values and positions - both increasingly perceived by growing numbers of people, including many independents who supported him three years ago.

My hope had been that the Republicans might gain enough new seats in the Senate to control both houses of Congress, perhaps even achieve a veto proof majoirity in the Senate. I now think that the veto-proof majority may not be necessary.

I believe the defining issues are (1) the obviously small economic return achieved by the massive stimulus spending; (2)the growing perception that real economic growth is being significantly hindered by the misguided environmental and labor policies of the administration; and (3) the increasingly visible irresponsibility of the President and the Democrat majority in the Senate with respect to government spending.

Increasing numbers of people have begun to consider the incredible duplicity of a President who submitted a largely meaningless high deficit budget; then trashed it in his State of the Union Speech; and later trashed the specific proposals of his political opponents, without any specific alternative of his own - together with a Democrat Congress that failed to even vote on a budget for the current fiscal year before it started, and a Democrat Senate that hasn't passed a budget in almost two years.

The Democrat strategy appears to be one of hiding behind demands to tax the rich and protect current entitlements - all without offering any concrete proposals - even things like budgets which it is their responsibility to do. This may satisfy ther committed sheep in various Democrat constituencies, but increasingly it appears to frustrate the independent voters, who hold the balance in the electorate.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Is there any actual evidence that 'increasing numbers' of people have woken up to see that your position is the true one, George? Or is this just a continuation of the continually 'increasing numbers' of Americans that you cite in posts like this? As you've been claiming this for years, one would expect to see - by now - large majorities supporting practically all of your positions.

Is there ever a point where decreasing numbers of Americans agree with you? I never see that assertion made!

I would point out that actual polling shows, yeah. The opposite. Most polls show that folks agree more with Obama and his plans than the Republicans, and that they would rather see moderate solutions (involving both tax increases AND spending cuts) than they would take the Republican line.

I'd love to see your evidence for the use of the word 'increasingly' in this post. Won't hold my breath tho.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The next presidential election is now only 16 months away. I have until recently believed that President Obama would almost certainly win reelection for a second term - as do most of out recent presidents. However, of late I have come to the conclusion that he very likely will not do so, and will, instead be a one term President.

The Democrat strategy appears to be one of hiding behind demands to tax the rich and protect current entitlements - all without offering any concrete proposals - even things like budgets which it is their responsibility to do. This may satisfy ther committed sheep in various Democrat constituencies, but increasingly it appears to frustrate the independent voters, who hold the balance in the electorate.

I have been thinking Obama was a one term mistake for quite some time and the fact that more people are now agreeing with
me is encouraging. The race to replace Obama in the 2012 election is just beginning to pick up speed - PrezBO needs to go!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is there any actual evidence that 'increasing numbers' of people have woken up to see that your position is the true one, George? Or is this just a continuation of the continually 'increasing numbers' of Americans that you cite in posts like this? As you've been claiming this for years, one would expect to see - by now - large majorities supporting practically all of your positions.

Is there ever a point where decreasing numbers of Americans agree with you? I never see that assertion made!

I would point out that actual polling shows, yeah. The opposite. Most polls show that folks agree more with Obama and his plans than the Republicans, and that they would rather see moderate solutions (involving both tax increases AND spending cuts) than they would take the Republican line.

I'd love to see your evidence for the use of the word 'increasingly' in this post. Won't hold my breath tho.

You are - as usual - beating a dead horse. I made no claim about specific polls. Instead, I rather clearly based my prediction on my own impressions of the attitudes of independent voters, including many who voted for Obama three years ago, and of the coherent picture of his defects that appears to be emerging among them.

I have never, until now, forecasted an Obama defeat in the coming election. Indeed th only opinion I had expressed until now is that he probably will win a second term. You are merely tossing a lot of deceitful dust in the air.

The fact is most curent polling data puts Obama's current favorability ratings in the vulnerable range with respect to the coming election. According to them, it could go either way.

There are no polls that will tell us how people will vote 16 months from now. All forecasts are, of necessity, based on subjective judgments about the significance and likely persistence of current trends.

In short the objective data you demand doesn't exist. Moreover, you can't objectively prove or demonstrate your contrary views either.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

As long as you're willing to admit that your opinion is based upon a lot of subjective evidence (or none at all - you weren't really specific), and that you have no polling data to back it up, and that you can't point to any one event or group of events that has given you actual data to change your position with, I'm perfectly happy.

Why? Because everyone's allowed an opinion. In terms of your opinion, though, why should I take you any more seriously than that fool Waterboy?

Quote:

In short the objective data you demand doesn't exist. Moreover, you can't objectively prove or demonstrate your contrary views either.

Is your contention that I cannot produce polling that shows people supporting Obama and his policies over the Republicans in Congress and theirs Laughing

? Or that Obama is p0lling poorly against possible candidates from the GOP? You're wrong on both counts, but I'd like to give you the opportunity to either walk your statement back or let out a little more rope; either one is fine with me.

As you don't consider polls to be objective proof, but instead discount them constantly, you have created a neat little self-fulfilling situation here; you simply refuse to consider any evidence that counters your opinion.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

From the NYT Politics.

Quote:

The Caucus - The Politics and Government blog of The New York Times
March 28, 2011, 12:29 pm
Among Independents, Poll Favors Obama Over Congress
By MEGAN THEE-BRENAN

Independent voters make up an influential voting bloc that frequently decides elections, but they are an unpredictable bunch. In 2008, just over half of independent voters threw their support behind Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats, yet by the election of 2010, they had swung back to supporting Republicans for Congress. Now, just a few months into the new Congress’s term, more than twice as many independents approve of the job the president is doing than they do of the job Congress is doing, according to the latest CBS News poll.

Currently, 45 percent of independents approve of Mr. Obama’s job and 40 percent disapprove. This marks a rebound from a low of 35 percent approval, 50 percent disapproval in late October immediately before the midterm election. His highest rating among independents in Times/CBS polls was in late April 2009 around the 100-day mark of his term. At that point, Mr. Obama had a 68 percent approval rating among independents.

Congress’s job rating among independents is 18 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval in the latest CBS poll. This is a downturn from 24 percent approval in a Times/CBS poll conducted last month, though not as low as the 12 percent found in late October just before the election.

I'd say Obama beat congress by a huge margin.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Perhaps, because you so frequently confuse your own prejudgments with fact, you tend to see the same behavior in others.

I was very clearly stating my considered opinion about the likely outcome of the next Presidential; election and my perception of the issues that appear (to me) to be influencing it. In both matters my estimates of the situation have changed from earlier expressions of opinion. Indeed, that's why I posted it.

Since the issue at hand involves a prediction of currently unknowable future events, there is no possibility here other than an opinion. Thus your belated discovery that I was indeed expressing an opinion, betrays a certian confusion on your part.

There are no polls that will reliably forecast the outcome of the next election, though the available data does suggest the race will likely be competitive.

I don't believe you are in a very good position from which to accuse others of a failure to consider evidence contrary to their own views. You gave us all a very vivid demonstration of just that in the last election,

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

IIRC, re: the last election, I had in fact admitted by Summer that it did not look likely that the Dems would hold the house - but considered it unseemly to go back on my earlier, boastful claim that they would.

I knew you were expressing an opinion from the beginning, George. There was no confusion. I was merely using a round-about way of criticizing your opinion, by pointing out that it is substance-free and that you discount all the traditional avenues we see for judging such situations, in favor of your 'considered' opinion (love that line, btw, it adds such a hint of gravitas to what was otherwise a not that interesting comment).

Perhaps you'd be willing to go a step further, and tell us - which candidates do you think stand a good chance of beating Obama? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I used "considered" merely to indicate that I have thought carefully about the issue. Whether you or anyone believes that adds weight to the opinion, depends on your own estimates. I think you are projecting the mote in your own eye on me.

What are, "the traditional avenues we see for judging such situations" ( i.e. forecasting election results more than a year ahead of the event) ? Extrapolating that far on something as volatile and noisy as curent poll data isn't known to be either reliable or accurate.

The Republican candidate selection process is just beginning to converge. However, there are several candidates or potential candidates who I believe might defreat Obama including Romney, Bachman, Perry and others.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I hear what you are saying, georgeob, about the value of polling this far away from the elections. And I also appreciate the conversations, usually very civil, you have with Cyclo.
I somewhat agree with you on polling and might have to plead that it is, for some us with too much time on our hands, something to do. But I would argue that polling is actually more important than a spectator sport for political junkies.
Bachmann today, in officially announcing her candidacy, talked almost exclusively about the economy. No surprise but, based on polls, I think I detect social issues (gay marriage, abortion, immigration) becoming much more significant in the campaigns. Internal polls that we never see are likely crucial to guiding candidates.
Finally, I toss in the Supreme Court decision regarding distribution of violent video games to children. Not worth a thread, perhaps, of its on. 1st amendment.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

The variability over just a few week's time of the major poll results is enough to decide the election one way or the other - if you restrict your data to just that. On what statistical basis could anyone use this data to make any forecast with even a 50% confidence? That is the essential point here with respect to polling data.

The truth is we all make our forecasts based on known poll results, perceived trends over time with respect to major public issues, our own knowledge & experience of how similar past trends have played out, and a host of other factors. Until very recently I believed an Obama victory was highly likely: now I believe the result is uncertain, but that there is a growing weariness with his hands off approach to his job and his persistent retreat to vague generalities and political maneuvering on issues that many believe call instead for real action and leadership - the very things he appears least able to do. It is possible that all this may change and the associated trend may be reversed. However, I see no indication of that happening anytime soon. Indeed in the current very difficult economic conditions, I see ample room for growing perceptions that the whole social welfare and anti business agendas he has been pursuing (or has allowed his political allies to pursue) are themselves increasingly harmful to the general welfare in the current economic state of the world. In short I believe the current challenges are likely to increase and, without a profound change in his priorities and "leadership" behavior, recent trends are far more likely to increase than to reverse. That will be very bad for Obama.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Early polls are interesting, but not worth the time and effort put into them. Dramatic changes can happen depending on who ends up running, which candidates are selected by the party leaders at the convention, and how they perform in the debates.

We don't even know how many more people will be throwing their hat in the ring.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

All true. However, I am pointing out what appears (to me at least) to be a growing adverse trend with respect to the incumbent himself, and the likelihood of a continuation of adverse economic conditions that will likely add to his perceived liabilities.

Today's announcement of former Governor Blagojevitch's conviction and forthcoming sentencing (making two consecutive governors of Illinois comvicted of felonies in the execution of their offices) is likely to resurrect accounts of the political cesspool from which Obama emerged (voting "present" as usual). That isn't likely to help him either.

Jimmy Carter similarly convinced the voters of his limitations as a leader, despite earlier general applause for him as an intelligent, and gifted individual with needed new ideas. That proved fatal to him in the 1982 election. Obama is looking like a (different) version of the same thing.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Today's announcement of former Governor Blagojevitch's conviction and forthcoming sentencing (making two consecutive governors of Illinois comvicted of felonies in the execution of their offices) is likely to resurrect accounts of the political cesspool from which Obama emerged (voting "present" as usual). That isn't likely to help him either.

You're living in a dreamworld. The Blagojevich affair has been going on for three years. It has done as much damage to Obama (i.e. virtually nil) as it will ever do.

georgeob1 wrote:

Jimmy Carter similarly convinced the voters of his limitations as a leader, despite earlier general applause for him as an intelligent, and gifted individual with needed new ideas. That proved fatal to him in the 1982 election.

Oh well, at least Carter had six good years in the White House.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I tend to agree with you that Blago's conviction will not damage Obama, but I can't, for the life of me, figure out what cleverness you are attempting with the
"at least Carter had six good years in the White House."

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

the 1982 election.

Ronald Reagan won the election in 1980. Jimmy Carter was a one-termer.

Quote:

James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. (born October 1, 1924) is an American politician who served as the 39th President of the United States (1977–1981) and was the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, the only U.S. President to have received the Prize after leaving office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

1 Reply

@talk72000,

And there it was...right in front of my eyes.

Truth be told, I initally thought that's what Chicago Joe was getting on about but when I did the mental math, I left out the entire decade of the 90's!

It was pretty clever afterall, and I'm sure glad I didn't try to be clever in asking about it.

0 Replies

caption this picture of PrezBO

http://www.theblogmocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/obama-clown.gif

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

caption this picture of PrezBO

H2O Man's masturbation fodder for this afternoon. And evening. And first thing tomorrow morning.

1 Reply

@Gargamel,

Gargamel wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

caption this picture of PrezBO

My masturbation fodder for this afternoon. And evening. And first thing tomorrow morning.

Good for you, Gargoyle... stay in touch with yourself and think of Obama ordering you around.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know